Talk:Dreamweaver

Dreamweaver and disambiguation

I'm still a little clear on how dab actually is determined, and I was hoping someone could explain it to me. when I type in the word "dreamweaver", I am redirected to Adobe Dreamweaver, which doesn't seem to be the most common use of the word or even the initial use of the term. For me, it wold seem that it should probably either go to the dab page or one of the musical references, like Gary Wright's Dream Weaver.
I am thinking of replacing the redirect from the Adobe program to the song, musical group of the same name or the dab page itself, but am unclear how how we determine which term to use. I don't want to push my personal choices on the wiki, and it would be nice if there were some sort of reference (outside of a Google search) indicating which terms are more popular. If I am posting int he wrong place, its simply because I wanted to find a room full of more experienced folk than I to talk about this with. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that of the two, Adobe Dreamweaver is the most common use of the term. While Google Hits are not always useful, I think it is at least somewhat telling here. "Dreamweaver" its 23.8 million hits,[1] for "Dream Weaver", less than 700,000 with many of those still being for the software[2] Dream weaver already redirects to Dreamweaver (disambiguation), when really it should also go to the Adobe article, which should then link off to the disambig. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that opinion that for "dreamweaver", Adobe is by far the most common meaning. While not the initial use of the term, it is now most likely what people are looking for. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC offers a few ideas for relatively objective indicators, including search engine results. I'll disagree about "dream weaver" though, as I feel redirect to the dab page is appropriate in this case, since in my opinion seperate words do not and should not assume that someone intended to search for the combined word when there are other possibilities, and there is not (that I know of) a clear winner among the multiple "dream weaver" results which would win out under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this discussed on Talk:Dreamweaver? Pcap ping 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as I said, I wasn't sure where to broach the subject. Also, indicating by the fact that you yourself created a redlink in talking about it, some folk might not find the actual discussion about it. I came here to get folk speaking from experience, which I'd probably miss getting in the commentary wasteland that is "Dreamweaver".

But, back to my question: so what I'm getting from the feedback is that while we don't usually use Google hits, we actually use Google hits to determine primary topic. I think the difference of a single space is going to be overlooked by the casual user, and that going to dab seems a better. faster route. Can someone explain, using policy, how we actually determine this? I want to know so I can explain to an equally bewildered user in the future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely consensus is what determines the primary topic? (And ghits may be a useful part of determining consensus, though they shouldn't be used to bludgeon through regardless of consensus). TFOWR^propaganda 16:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when one considers the results-warping effects of Google Bombing. Granted, it's quite likely that an internet-focused application like Dreamweaver is going to show a huge number of hits on the internet, but we shouldn't shrug off real world uses and recognition of the term. I think that the song is far, far more recognizable in the mind of the casual reader than a computer program that requires a modicum of skill to operate, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is on Wikipedia looking up Dreamweaver, it is much more likely that they want the software rather than the song. Consider the actual stats of our site's usage.

Adobe Dreamweaver - 37283 views in April.
Dream Weaver (song) - 5576 views in April.
Dream Weaver, redirect page - 927 views in April.
Dreamweaver, redirect page - 6224 views in April.

I think the stats are conclusive. Nevertheless, I think Dream Weaver ought to go to the song or the redirect page because most looking for info about the software would type it without the space. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My previous response was more a response to your question about how to determine the primary topic, rather than a desire to get drawn into a discussion that should be taking place on the relevant talk page ;-)

However, I'd heard of Macromedia Dreamweaver back in the day (I'm assuming it's now an Adobe product?) but I hadn't heard of the song. YMMV! Either way, consensus is the answer, and you'll reach that via discussion (I take your point about it being a conversational wasteland - the solution would be to mention the discussion at Talk:Adobe Dreamweaver, Talk:Dream weaver and any related talk pages). TFOWR^propaganda 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN

Convenience break

Publicised at:

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 18:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirect should go to the dab page in this case. I don't have much view about the relevance of ghits to deciding this sort of question in general, but for this particular instance I don't think ghits are determinative. The term has been meaningful for much longer than the Adobe program or the internet have been around, and as the Adobe program is a web development tool, its representation in web pages is disproportionate to its more general relevance. (slightly edited for clarity). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I concur with the 69Anon. Frankly, i think you are missing the point, Jehochman. The stats are only inclusive in that they determine that an internet-focused software program is the largest search result on the internet - kind of a no-brainer there. However, a song from the 70's, still showing up in film and television today, would seem to be a wee bit more in the public consciousness than a software program. Do you have any other citation other than web search results to support your hypothesis that the software program is indeed more well-known than the song?

And please, to not have heard the song, one would have to have been living under a rock for the past 30 years. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or have never seen Wayne's World. –xeno^talk 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, never seen Wayne's World and was 5 when the song was released ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

allow me to crawl out from under my rock :-P Never heard of the song or the musical groups. As noted above, the actual article viewership clearly shows that Adobe Dreamweaver is the primary topic of the word "Dreamweaver", and by extension a common typo "Dream weaver". The google hits I mentioned are secondary, but also show the same. While you may have heard the song, it seems not that many people have and Dreamweaver is a well known program that sells millions of copies in the hear and now, and has for over a decade. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article viewership may be an artifact of the redirect pointing to the article. Anyway, the viewership is not terribly relevant either. WP does not run on Nielsen ratings. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect would only account for 927 of the 37283 for the Adobe product. I take your point about ratings, but it still would appear that the primary topic, in terms of readers, is the Adobe product. I've not !voted, but I'm strongly leaning towards the status quo. TFOWR^propaganda 18:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could've been boosted by the number of views on Dream Weaver (song) too, though. –xeno^talk 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow? I was assuming that folk typing "dream weaver" were all looking for the song (which is probably a silly idea), so the redirect's count should really count towards "Dream weaver (song)" instead of "Adobe Dreamweaver". Beean a hard day for me, Wikipedia-wise - it's entirely possible I've missed Xeno's point and the IP's point... TFOWR^propaganda 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that if folks wanting "Dream Weaver (song)" typed "Dreamweaver", then eventually got to Dream Weaver (song) then some of those viewers would account for non-significant views on the software page. However, since only 611 visited the dab page, I think that 611 would be the maximum unearned views for the software page, not 5000+. –xeno^talk 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well put, 69Anon. Anma, I would caution you against touting the software as " a well known program that sells millions of copies in the hear (sic) and now, and has for over a decade". "Dream Weaver" sold millions and millions of copies over 30 years ago, was the #2 song in the US and #1 song in Europe, launched the career of a prolific musician (who still works today), and is still recognizable and used in media in the here and now. That is one Bigger Dick contest you are going to lose pretty much right away.

I would suggest we find a way to evaluate the relative popularity of both that doesn't give undue advantage to one or the other. Clearly, using internet results to evaluate the popularity of an internet-focused software application is rash at best. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if we were purely talking about Google hits, but the stats above are from actual Wikipedia page reads. TFOWR^propaganda 18:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Adobe Dreamweaver had 30,000 some odd views in April but Dreamweaver (disambiguation) (linked prominently at the top of that page) only had [611. So unless the people who wanted some other kind of Dreamweaver simply gave up after reaching the software page, it seems at maximum 611 people who typed Dreamweaver wanted something other than Adobe Dreamweaver. –xeno^talk 18:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think we are throwing our personal preferences in here, namely those of the internet and Wikipedia. When we consider that a large number of people likely confuse the song with Aerosmith's "Dream On" or with REO Speedwagon's song of the same name, or search the title with the space and without. If we add those up, I am guessing we might see more competitive results. In any case, I am not necessarily opting for the song being the primary (though I would if we are going to use the one which was popular first), I am suggesting that the primary search result should be the dab page like this. . - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever deciding a primary topic issue, the goal is to inconvenience as few readers as possible. The available page view stats seem to indicate the status quo already does that. If we put a dab page at the primary topic everyone has to make two hops to get to where the want. Whereas presently, the vast majority of them get to the page they were apparently looking for. –xeno^talk 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oh definitely, my personal preference is for Wikipedia and its readers. Surely that's everyone's main consideration? TFOWR^propaganda 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Again, Xeno, I am suggesting that you are using biased information as evidence. However, your argument that using the dab causes "two hops" for people to find their preferred term, whereas most everyone wants the program. Lets say someone doesn't want the software; they then have to click the dab link at the top and scroll through the list to find their preferred term - three clicks in total. So we inconvenience a statistically significant number? That isn't intuitive or helpful; that's inconveniencing them. If everyone has to click twice, that's balanced and neutral. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really what I meant, TFOWR. I meant that using Wikipedia hit engines to determine which articles are being sought is murky at best, akin to determining that Desiree Bassett didn't exist before last week (her article was added to Mainspace at that time). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is our own viewership data biased? As far as being "balanced and neutral" - that would mean we inconvenienced over 35,000 people rather than just over 600. How's this for a compromise? –xeno^talk 19:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the logic for an article created within the past month, but these articles - they're both long-standing articles. The song article dates to at least 2005, and the Macromedia one to 2007 at least (I didn't bother going back beyond the last 500 edits). As long as we disregard May 2010's stats, we should be golden - surely? TFOWR^propaganda 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Agree with Xeno. Jack, you clearly have an interest in the song, since you are working on its articles and from the start of this discussion. You stated that you "don't want to push [your] personal choices on the wiki", yet that seems to be what you are doing. Multiple experienced editors (as requested) have stated that Adobe Dreamweaver is the clearly identifiable primary topic per guidelines and the available evidence, yet you seem determined to discount it. Primary topic is concerned about what is the one MOST readers are likely coming for. It seems fairly clear that 99% of readers are coming for Adobe Dreamweaver based on what those readers are actually looking at. How is it "biased" to say that it is the primary topic for Wikipedia readers (which are the ones who matter), when the readers have made it unequivocally clear that it is. I'm also disappointed that despite your suggestion having no consensus, you attempted to change this redirect anyway, and in your rearranging to move Dreamweaver to the bottom and your own preferred subjects (music) to the top. (As a side note, are you the IP above? If so, can you please mark those edits for easier following). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its biased in that the casual user might look for a term and, not finding it, might search elsewhere (which wouldn't show up in viewership data. If an article is not dab'd properly, most people won;t bother before moving on. I cannot tell you how many times I, before starting to edit here, would search a term and completely miss the link to the dab page, and exit back to Google, or Bing or some other search engine to find what I was looking for. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We necessarily have to base our decisions on known knowns, not known unknowns. In any case this compromise edit should alleviate your concern. Unless they completely ignore the hatnote - which would be their loss. Besides, if they go back to google and search "dream weaver song" or even "dreamweaver song", the first hit is...our article. =) –xeno^talk 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Amna, let's leave me and my own preferences out of the equation; one could easily say that you prefer the software program, with no further advancement of the discussion. I am not pushing my personal preferences on the wiki: it would seem pretty encyclopedic to use the encyclopedic term that came first, if it has ore than negligible popularity. It also seem encyclopedic to make the wiki easier for all users to use, not just ones that use computer software. It's a no-brainer that people who edit in Wikipedia are going to be more familiar with comouter software than 1970's music; the same doesn;t hold true for the world at large.

And no, I am not the IP 69Anon- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't see the benefit in inconveniencing tens of thousands of readers rather than several hundred. –xeno^talk 19:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Xeno, I think that the hatnote is useful, but as I noted, many casual readers will miss them. By dab'ing the term, everyone gets the same dab page, and can choose their preferred term. Clearly, if someone types in "Adobe Dreamweaver", they are going to end up at their desired term. We shouldn't penalize and incovenience the (contestably, as I - again - note that you are using biased data to determine your findings) second most popular usage of the word for thousands and thousands of causal users, especially when it can be easily alleviated via linking directly to dab.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just don't think your opinion dovetails with our WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines. And I still find your belief that using Wikipedia data is biased fairly peculiar: folks who don't read Wikipedia shouldn't concern us. –xeno^talk 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Sorry, but I just don't see how its better to inconvenience 85% of readers, for at most 15% of them. If people are in such a hurry that they can't see the dab link (which is pretty noticeable), then it is not Wikipedia's job to fix their browsing habits. Adobe Dreamweaver is, again, clearly the primary topic by all available evidence. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is correct that the redirect for "Dreamweaver" (one word) go there, with the Dablink at the top for other possible uses. We have now pointed out two of the three methods noted there for way of determining the primary topic. Let's look at the last - linkage. Dreamweaver (disambiguation) is directly linked to from 3 articles and the target of 6 redirects[3]. Dream Weaver (song) is linked to from less than 30 articles[4]. Adobe Dreamweaver is linked to from over 120 articles[5]. Again, showing it is the clear primary target. Primary topic is not determined by "what came first". It is what is the primary target now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break II

Looking a bit more closely at PRIMARYTOPIC, it reads:

"There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may (page emphasis, not mine) help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include..:"

it goes on to suggest that Wikipedia and Google can be used. It's a suggestion, not an ironclad rule.

And you missed my point, Xeno and Anma: I am not talking about people who don;t use Wikipedia (though I personally think it is at best unwise to ignore the opportunity to bring in more users and readers), but rather the casual user - someone who uses Wikipedia casually, and not an editor. I cannot state it much more clearly than I have; the Google results you are relying far too heavily upon is inherently biased towards an internet-focused software program that a statistically tiny group of people use. Does anyone know how many copies of Dreamweaver have been sold? I would bet a sizable chunk of change it is likely a far smaller number than those who have heard the song. This is common sense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casual readers are still reflected in the Wikipedia viewership data (Google data is secondary) which clearly shows that Adobe Dreamweaver is far-and-away the primary topic for Dreamweaver. –xeno^talk 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, it isn't. Say I type in 'dreamweaver'. Currently, its going to take me to the internet-focused software, not the term i want. Now, my choices are as follows: I can either search around the page for a link to the dab page (and not all casual users will do this, esp if they are using mobile link-ups to access Wikipedia), re-type the search term adding in "song" or leave Wikipedia altogether and go back to my search engine to find a link that actually takes me to the song. All three alternatives are far more inconvenient than simply taking us to the dab page. And viewership data is only going to show the hit on the software program, since that's where my search for the song initially landed me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to change our primary topic guidelines because of these hypothetical casual readers that are too lazy or impatient to read the very first line of the page. If you think we should, the correct venue would be WT:Disambiguation; but for now I think it's been adequately demonstrated that the status quo has both consensus and a firm basis in the existing guideline. –xeno^talk 20:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was you, cutting me off, right? Sorry, homey don't play that (iow, that isn't going to be an effective discussion technique with me). Categorizing our casual readers as lazy or impatient (esp. when one stops to consider the number of edit conflicts we, as editors, have ihad in this very conversation). I am going to say it again, as it appears that you again chose to miss the point (and allow me to venture the position that doing so is growing somewhat annoying). Wiki viewership is going to show simple numbers of where people initially land. Without an initial dab 'crossroads', readers are of course going to land on the software-focused program - the aforementioned no-brainer. Therefore, using them to determine the popularity of one term over another is misleading. That would be akin to saying that one town is more popular than another simply because someone closed to main highway ramp to one of the two towns being compared. Or that certain topics were of no interest whatsoever prior to their article creation. That's what I mean when I say you are using the viewership data incorrectly. As well, using an internet search engine to determine that links to queries about the internet-based software program is misleading, both for the reason that the software is based on using the internet and the fact that more than half of the results appear to be queries on how to use the program, generated by - again - a group of users statistically dwarfed by the number of people who know the song. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think I am in the right here (to me, this ridiculously easy to resolve, and I do not understand the clearly biased resistance to an equitable solution to the problem), and instead of sidestepping the arguments suggesting adherence to a guideline that itself insists shouldn't be adhered to stringently and citing WP:IAR (as that would resolve nothing and likely start an edit war), I am going to suggest that we seek out a Third Opinion in this matter. Who wants to list it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not cutting you off, but I don't think I will be responding much more. The resistance is because changing Dreamweaver from the software to the dab it is certainly not equitable - we will be inconveniencing tens of thousands of readers rather than several hundred, or at most, a couple thousand (if there really are droves of these hypothetical users who simply wander off of our site when they don't get instant gratification). You can go ahead and request a third opinion, I think I've said all I have to say. By the way, I'm not biased towards the software that I've never used - I far prefer listening to the Dream Weaver song over using the Dreamweaver software =). –xeno^talk 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, 30 is not applicable as there are more than two editors involved in this discussion (hence the "third" in its name :-P). Going through WP:DR, the next steps would be posting a note at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation asking for input from there on this discussion, or at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard asking for additional outside views. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is also an option, but I think that would be premature at this point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement is listed with 3O here. If you want me to withdraw the issue in order to post to WT: Disambiguation or Content Noticeboard, I'll need a 'show of hands' to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will likely be delisted by a 30 member since it isn't just between two editors, but seven by my count. I have posted a note at WT Diambig for now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This dispute has been de-listed at WP:3O because more than two editors are involved (i.e. you already have a third opinion, and, indeed, fourth, fifth opinions, etc.) You may have intended to list it at WP:RFC instead. Anaxial (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Something new learned on my part. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further input

Another opinion. I think it's fine as it is. With the vast majority of links to Dreamweaver likely intended for the Adobe version, making this a disambig page will merely set our hard-working disambiguators up with yet another regular disambiguation task on top of the dozens we already contend with. bd2412 T 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we already have a dab page that can be used as a primary destination for the search. It requires one edit, and I've already demonstrated such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What bd2412 is saying is that folks will often link to simply "Dreamweaver", wanting to link to "Adobe Dreamweaver", and if "Dreamweaver" then points to a dab page, we are adding more work for the WP:DPWL project. –xeno^talk 13:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Why make new work for ourselves unnecessarily? bd2412 T 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, to be blunt, that the criteria being utilized to determine the primary is critically flawed Internet searches are known to skew towards internet or computer-based results if such. Furthermore, wiki viewer hits are grossly inaccurate: someone types dreamweaver and lands at the application, intending instead any one of the other possibilities (most likely, the song, as results noting it cover a gamut of sources, and not just YouTube tutorials and places hawking the software and add-ons). If we were initiating such an examination where the dab page was the landing pad for the search, they might be more accurate, as the user would then go to that page they wanted. However, with a redirect in place, the choice is removed for the casual or even regular reader, adding several more clicks or an entire backing out of the wiki to a search engine to re-seek a link. Using a dab as the landing pad is an elegant and efficient solution to the problem, as its presented in several other software-related title (Flash and Acrobat again spring to mind). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 6200 people travelled to Adobe Dreamweaver by way of the redirect last month [6]. Are you honestly suggesting that over 90% of them simply wandered off rather than clicking the hatnote to get to the dab page? –xeno^talk 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is: the software is the primary usage of "Dreamweaver" but not of "Dream W/weaver", so the current situation where "Dreamweaver" redirects to the software and all other variations go to the dab page seems fine. PamD (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just so we're all clear, the problem is not that there aren't internet searches for Dreamweaver the internet software, but that the searches are: a) inherently biased to matters related to internet, and b} most of the search results are for either purchasing or using the Dreamweaver software, not an excess of sites where Dreamweaver is discussed.
Furthermore, the Wikipedia viewer doesn't account for the fact that the totals only show the folks who land on the software article after being (likely) incorrectly redirected there. It doesn't register those users who search for the song or who leave the wiki to head back to the search engines to find the correct link for the song.
Lastly, setting the dab term as the original destination - a rather common occurrence within the wiki-en - solves the problem altogether, affording each user the same opportunity to select the appropriate dab term they seek. Currently, users not wanting (or even knowing about) the software program have to jump through several more hoops to get to their destination. My understanding of foundation princicples is that we are supposed to create an encyclopedia that the regular user can utilize, without specialized knowledge of redirects and links. Having the dab page set as the landing pad makes it easier for users of all stripe, from beginners to experts in internet usage. Disallowing such is simply ignoring the general populace, who we are trying to attract, not alienate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - the wikipedia usage statistics together with the fact that most people that use Wikipedia more than a few times will expect hatnotes - and a large number that are novices will find the hatnote - makes the current setup optimal for the people that use Wikipedia. Compared to similar discussions on other pages, the numbers here are overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could I trouble you to cite your reasoning, please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more to say: If we assume the number of people missing the hatnote is small, the statistics of wikipedia page usage indicate that the current setup would appear to minimize the total inconvenience for people entering Dreamweaver in the search box - which is the main goal of the dab page and a primary target (if there is one). (John User:Jwy talk) 06:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would point out that we have precisely zero idea how many peple are missing the hatnotes. As I understand it Wiki viewer stats can be misinterpreted as follows:

I type in dreamweaver (thinking of the song, or the DSV episode or whatever), and end up in the page. The wiki viewer shows I landed in Adobe Dreamweaver, after having searched for Dreamweaver. That drives the viewership stats for the software program way up, when in actuality I (still looking for the correct article) search around for other terms, like Wayne's World, or Gary Wright and get to the article eventually from there. Alternatively, I back out entirely to my initial search engine and look elsewhere for my answer.

The end result is that Dreamweaver looks more popular in wiki viewer stats than ice on a Miami beach, while the song gets practically no hits at all. One click versus several clicks to get where they wanted in the first place. Or not at all.

That is why I suggest using the dab term as the initial landing pad for the search. We already do that for Dream Weaver (note the space); we should do the same thing for an extremely similar word.

And again, a google search finds a lot of terms for the internet software, sure - but the search is biased; first of all, the program is internet-based, so of course inquiries about it are going to be populous on the internet I think its unreflective of the population at large. Most of the search results are from Adobe itself, or ads/videos for/of tutorials. The ones for the song are usually spot on resources and reviews. That is why I think the quoting of citations for the commercial product are at best, malformed. The number of people who use/have heard of the program are quite simply dwarfed by the number of people who have at least heard the song either on the radio or in a film. Its just common sense. Either way, i am not arguing that one term is more important/popular than the other; I am arguing that using the dab page as the initial landing pad cuts down the number of clicks the reader has to make to get to their desired location. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - John captures it well, I think. AndrewHowse (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's John? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment is signed "John User:Jwy"; I believe he likes to be known as John. AndrewHowse (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that would should have been obvious. Thanks for the clarification. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is - the software is pretty clearly primary topic and the current hatnote arrangment is precisely what is advised by dab guidelines. older ≠ wiser 01:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamweaver and Dream Weaver

In the discussion above, I was not aware that Dream Weaver redirects to Dreamweaver (disambiguation). We might consider creating Dream Weaver (disambiguation) and pointing the two dab pages at each other via the See also section. Each might and might not have a primary target. I believe Dreamweaver would go to the software. I'm not sure about Dream Weaver. The only drawback I see is that it makes life worse for anyone entering Dreamweaver for a Dream Weaver article or visa versa. I'm not sure how we can collect information about this. But if we were able to determine that there was not much confusion between the two titles, two dab pages would be an improvement. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason we can't have a search for both Dream Weaver and Dreamweaver lead to the same dab page? It seems a more elegant solution. That way, the ""largest" group is barely inconvenienced (an extra click), and those heading to the song are prevented from having to click more than twice and re-typing, or searching elsewhere (as indicated by the example above). When readers come to Wikipedia, it's in our best interests to keep them here; most of our editors were former casual users. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would go against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as currently applies to Dreamweaver. I understand that you might not agree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I think it'll be difficult to overturn that from here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have IAR; if the rule isn't working to make the encyclopedia work better, it can easily become an exception to the rule. It would seem a graceful solution to the problem, which doesn't greatly inconvenience the software folk, and prevents significant incomvenience by every other user. It puts everyone on the footing oof having - at most - two clicks from search to article.

Understand that I am not necessarily saying that the MOSDAB is broken, but that it isn't working in this instance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is the overwhelming consensus above... –xeno^talk 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that typically these types of pages share a single location so that people who weren't sure about the space or no space don't have to make an extra hop. Though I suppose we could have something like this. –xeno^talk 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hmmm. Everyone else who's weighed in seems to think the current arrangement is working, with perhaps John's suggestion taken on board. I think it would be difficult to say that IAR trumps consensus. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, your suggestion might work and - in fact - we could possibly have the two terms BOTH have primary topics with hatnotes back here. If they enter the space -> the song. If they don't - the software. If for whatever reason they don't end up where they want to be, hatnote brings them here (and maybe an explicit link to the "other" primary topic) and they find what they want. Scary, but it might be the optimal solution IF those two are the most likely targets and the people looking for them GENERALLY do the right thing with the space. I tend to think this is the case, but I can't "prove" it. Its sort of ignoring MOSDAB, but not explicitly and does so in a limited, hopefully logically supported, way. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an absolutely capital idea. –xeno^talk 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Xeno. An excellent and pretty elegant way around the problem. I'm all for it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go ahead an try it out. And thanks for pointing out that the signature wasn't necessarily clear. How about this: --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll wait a bit for more comments and if there aren't further changes, I'll try to document an appropriate talk page so people who see the double headed dab page will be enlightened as to its wisdom :-) Oh, and I may drop a note a the DAB project for their comments. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These links need to be taken care of: Special:WhatLinksHere/Dream Weaver - at least the ones that aren't mean for the song. –xeno^talk 03:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on: right now Dream Weaver redirects to Dream Weaver (song). That's not right. If the song is the primary usage of "Dream Weaver", then the song article needs to be moved to that title. If not, then the redirect should be to the dab page. Another decision is needed as to where "Dream weaver" (small "w") should lead. PamD (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true: "If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. " [emph. mine]. I think that "Dream weaver" should behave the same as "Dream Weaver", whatever that behaviour may be. –xeno^talk 12:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Xeno. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why should the song not be at plain Dream Weaver, if we're accepting that the song is the primary usage? There's no need for it to be at a disambiguated title. As I understand it, xeno's bolded wording is for cases where one topic is the primary usage of more than one term (eg where the company Hewlett-Packard is also the primary usage of HP, so that WP redirects to it - but not of Hp which redirects to Horse-power). PamD (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This also seems to confirm that our "two primary topics" has precedent and is acceptable. –xeno^talk 18:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]